ISVBF vs. CQQQ
ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -2.55%/yr vs -6.40%/yr for CQQQ. Their 0.31 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.
Performance
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -7.08% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -3.27% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- 8.66%
- 6M
- -11.40%
- YTD
- -7.08%
- 1Y
- 0.32%
- 3Y*
- 7.49%
- 5Y*
- -2.55%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -4.51%
CQQQ
- 1D
- 1.31%
- 1M
- -6.83%
- 6M
- -9.86%
- YTD
- -3.27%
- 1Y
- 11.64%
- 3Y*
- 6.42%
- 5Y*
- -6.40%
- 10Y*
- 4.48%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.34%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $60.75M | $69.64M | $78.22M | |
| $155.37K | $259.62K | $313.99K |
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -7.08% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -3.27% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -22.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and CQQQ is 0.52, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.52 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.44 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.31 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.31 |
Over the past year, ISVBF and CQQQ have become more correlated (0.52) than their long-term average of 0.31, meaning their price movements have been converging.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ISVBF vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
ISVBF
CQQQ
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ISVBF | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.35 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.02 | 1.08 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.06 | 0.41 | -0.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.12 | 0.88 | -1.00 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and CQQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISVBF | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.78% | -73.99% | +20.21% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.14% | -24.41% | +0.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.14% | -34.42% | +10.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -46.06% | -62.09% | +16.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -73.99% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.69% | -52.02% | +27.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.58% | -28.49% | -4.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.15% | 11.28% | -0.13% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) is 6.84%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 12.09%. This indicates that ISVBF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ISVBF | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.84% | 12.09% | -5.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.50% | 24.80% | +1.70% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.73% | 32.54% | -0.81% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.06% | 38.19% | -8.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.07% | 33.56% | -3.49% |
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
ISVBF vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.24%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.24% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ISVBF and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (12.09%) compared to ISVBF (6.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -2.55% vs -6.40% for CQQQ. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 6.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -2.55% return vs -6.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.24%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.04), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for ISVBF and CQQQ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer